3 ms·

Ok good, but why you're assuming that there are no parallels to your case in "other dictatorships"? In Russia we saw people refusing the war, in China there i s

Ok good, but why you're assuming that there are no parallels to your case in "other dictatorships"? In Russia we saw people refusing the war, in China there i s work to fight corruption and expose the corrupts... in Iran there are pro west people and some public figures that publicly criticize the supreme leader and so. Whatever answer you have for this can be the answer for your case. My whole point is, the free press of the west only free for the cases that doesn't hurt that much, and because of conflicts between the democrats and Republicans (a similar thing exists in other countries, like Iran). But for cases that matters there will be practically no alternative story (see: Ukraine war, Iraq war).

marvin 4y ago
I don't know what part of the West you lived in during the Iraq war, but in my country, which is an enthusiastic NATO member, the newspapers hardly printed any opinion pieces that blatantly reflected the propaganda points of the US government. They were quoted, of course, "weapons of mass destruction blah blah blah", but the continuous critical review was very skeptical towards the official US narrative, and was quick to point out the likelihood of forged intelligence reports and other sources that questioned the motive of the invasion. I myself went to a public protest against it at the time, and the prevailing public opinion was that the invasion was not justified. Tough luck; our opinion didn't matter but at least no one were beaten up or went to prison over it. Our tax money did not kill Iraqis. I do understand where you're coming from, and I can agree with your sentiment to a certain extent. There is a double standard regarding certain "rubber hits the road" aspects of the top-level leadership in Western countries, that falls far short of democratic ideals. Edward Snowden and Julian Assange have been hunted like rabid animals for merely revealing factual information that was relevant to public discourse. France, USA, others, have developed a governance structure that does not resemble well-functioning democracies, and the latter is dangerously close to an authoritarian shift. The USA literally tortured suspected terrorist collaborators with no judicial oversight. This is not an exhaustive list. So certainly, there's plenty to criticize and some of it runs very deep. Human rights violations happen with some regularity. But freedom of speech and freedom of the press is not abolished. The rule of law applies. I will certainly point it out if this risks ceasing to be the case, first and foremost because that leads to a bad society to live in, but also because the culture that stems from these values is more economically powerful than one without them. On Ukraine I'll just disagree with you. Russia's invasion is an imperialist military expansion. That kind of thing should only happen in history books. The rest of the world must use all safe means to prevent it from succeeding and setting precedent, and for the sake of existential risk also to avoid nuclear proliferation in small and exposed countries. No one wants to share a long land border with a geopolitical adversary; I'd be happy to criticize the lack of statesmanship and realpolitik in managing Ukraine's NATO ambitions versus Russia's wish for security guarantees. But the war, or something like it, would have happened regardless. It's just a fig leaf. The core of the issue is Russian leadership's fear of Ukraine, like Poland and the Baltic states, setting an example of a peer culture succeeding with dramatically higher wealth growth under democratic values, that the inhabitants themselves decided to implement. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it when history becomes clearer in 10 years. [Edit: Following one of your points. Countries without democracy, rule of law and freedom of speech certainly and obviously have independent thinkers. Some of them are incredibly brave to voice their opinions in spite of sometimes brutal punishments. More so than all Western journalists. My commentary is on the societal environment and governance. But being susceptible to propaganda is universally human, and most people are not independent thinkers, regardless of where they grew up Should also mention that I have huge respect for Russian culture and Russian cultural and scientific achievements. These comments are not a criticism of peoples and their cultures].
- aiProgMach 4y ago
  I'm not denying that under some circumstances you can find lot of impressive freedom of speech in the west. The idea is that the outcome is not different in the causes that actually matters! Even your point about the Iraq war proves my point, despite all the fight back, the US was able to manufacture the consent and execute the plans, similar thing happened in the Syrian war and in many other places. Even in the Ukrainian war this is happening again, you don't need to be on the Russian side (and I'm not) to understand that there is manufactured consent in the whole western bloc to move forward with the war (you can view this war as pure Russian offence, or as Geo-political provocation by the US to fight Russia and even China to stop it's decline or something in between those extremes). Of Course you will find many anti US leftists and Pro Russian voices in the west, but those are demonized(even pointing some nuance can make you a Russian bot/agent) so they have no to little effect in the grand scheme of things. I'm from a "third wold" country that have lot of freedom of speech, you can even curse many political leaders on the TV without consequences, but I know that this is not real freedom of speech because the power structures make this irrelevant mostly (not that I want to give up on this freedom). At some point in the future, when the western bloc already declined in power enough this will be clear, we will be talking about how the freedom of speech and democracy was mostly a facade that hides the real power structures and didn't make big effect on the important causes of the world. Decades of scandals, coups, and wars orchestrated by USA (what Snowden and Assange revealed is only one episode of long list) didn't stop many (most?) US people from thinking that they're the "good people in the room" despite some mistakes.
  - marvin 4y ago
    Well, you've got a view that's in some ways refreshing since it's really far removed from what the mainstream narrative says. But we're either discussing subtly different topics, or I don't agree with your central point. Not entirely sure which. Democracy, freedom of speech, rule of law mostly a facade that hides the real power structures regarding the most important questions of the world? If we decide that "the most important questions of the world" is something other than what the citizens of democracies really care about, then sure, you can run a supertanker through that rhetorical opening. There's plenty of space for dubious foreign policy that supports a small group of people, outside of the space of topics that most people care about. As long as the country in question is so rich that it can afford a powerful military with only a small fraction of its tax revenue. In that case, the foreign policy becomes just a budgetary rounding error that most people don't care about. Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars could arguably fit that definition. But the USA couldn't have afforded those (and maintained enough public support) if it wasn't stupidly rich compared to everyone else. The reason rule of law, democracy and civil liberties won out over totalitarianism after World War two is that those values turn out to produce societies that have more economic power. Not that they're inherently morally superior, although I know what sort of society I'd prefer to live in. I'm ignoring for the moment that the Soviet Union was one of the victors; they wouldn't have been if the USA hadn't been shipping them an incredible amount of home-produced weapons and equipment. It's hard to understate the power of the incentive of retaining most of the value of the valuable thing you created. Regarding Ukraine, if we accept the extreme view that the USA in fact deliberately managed to goad Putin the idiot into making the biggest strategic mistake of the 21st century (invading Ukraine), the mistake is still on Putin. I'll agree it wouldn't have been a nice thing to do, but the moral calculus isn't easy to untangle. Wars are hell, but I have no illusions about what moral transgressions Russia is capable of, and an expanding empire with great power is certainly not a force of great net good in the world. Maybe it could be a net force for good in general, just by default, if the progress of civilization does not stagnate. But it certainly could stagnate and make a net negative. And it's hard to believe it would do a better job than a civilization with great individual freedoms. If the most important questions of the world are greater quality of life for everyone, sustainably, then Western values certainly play a role in achieving that. But the calculus would be a challenge to figure out. The majority of the world's population doesn't live in liberal democracies, after all. Most scientific and engineering achievement has come from liberal democracies, but it's not completely obvious if that's just because what became the liberal democracies had a big head start with industrialization.

marvin 4y ago

I don't know what part of the West you lived in during the Iraq war, but in my country, which is an enthusiastic NATO member, the newspapers hardly printed any opinion pieces that blatantly reflected the propaganda points of the US government. They were quoted, of course, "weapons of mass destruction blah blah blah", but the continuous critical review was very skeptical towards the official US narrative, and was quick to point out the likelihood of forged intelligence reports and other sources that questioned the motive of the invasion. I myself went to a public protest against it at the time, and the prevailing public opinion was that the invasion was not justified. Tough luck; our opinion didn't matter but at least no one were beaten up or went to prison over it. Our tax money did not kill Iraqis. I do understand where you're coming from, and I can agree with your sentiment to a certain extent. There is a double standard regarding certain "rubber hits the road" aspects of the top-level leadership in Western countries, that falls far short of democratic ideals. Edward Snowden and Julian Assange have been hunted like rabid animals for merely revealing factual information that was relevant to public discourse. France, USA, others, have developed a governance structure that does not resemble well-functioning democracies, and the latter is dangerously close to an authoritarian shift. The USA literally tortured suspected terrorist collaborators with no judicial oversight. This is not an exhaustive list. So certainly, there's plenty to criticize and some of it runs very deep. Human rights violations happen with some regularity. But freedom of speech and freedom of the press is not abolished. The rule of law applies. I will certainly point it out if this risks ceasing to be the case, first and foremost because that leads to a bad society to live in, but also because the culture that stems from these values is more economically powerful than one without them. On Ukraine I'll just disagree with you. Russia's invasion is an imperialist military expansion. That kind of thing should only happen in history books. The rest of the world must use all safe means to prevent it from succeeding and setting precedent, and for the sake of existential risk also to avoid nuclear proliferation in small and exposed countries. No one wants to share a long land border with a geopolitical adversary; I'd be happy to criticize the lack of statesmanship and realpolitik in managing Ukraine's NATO ambitions versus Russia's wish for security guarantees. But the war, or something like it, would have happened regardless. It's just a fig leaf. The core of the issue is Russian leadership's fear of Ukraine, like Poland and the Baltic states, setting an example of a peer culture succeeding with dramatically higher wealth growth under democratic values, that the inhabitants themselves decided to implement. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it when history becomes clearer in 10 years. [Edit: Following one of your points. Countries without democracy, rule of law and freedom of speech certainly and obviously have independent thinkers. Some of them are incredibly brave to voice their opinions in spite of sometimes brutal punishments. More so than all Western journalists. My commentary is on the societal environment and governance. But being susceptible to propaganda is universally human, and most people are not independent thinkers, regardless of where they grew up Should also mention that I have huge respect for Russian culture and Russian cultural and scientific achievements. These comments are not a criticism of peoples and their cultures].

aiProgMach 4y ago
I'm not denying that under some circumstances you can find lot of impressive freedom of speech in the west. The idea is that the outcome is not different in the causes that actually matters! Even your point about the Iraq war proves my point, despite all the fight back, the US was able to manufacture the consent and execute the plans, similar thing happened in the Syrian war and in many other places. Even in the Ukrainian war this is happening again, you don't need to be on the Russian side (and I'm not) to understand that there is manufactured consent in the whole western bloc to move forward with the war (you can view this war as pure Russian offence, or as Geo-political provocation by the US to fight Russia and even China to stop it's decline or something in between those extremes). Of Course you will find many anti US leftists and Pro Russian voices in the west, but those are demonized(even pointing some nuance can make you a Russian bot/agent) so they have no to little effect in the grand scheme of things. I'm from a "third wold" country that have lot of freedom of speech, you can even curse many political leaders on the TV without consequences, but I know that this is not real freedom of speech because the power structures make this irrelevant mostly (not that I want to give up on this freedom). At some point in the future, when the western bloc already declined in power enough this will be clear, we will be talking about how the freedom of speech and democracy was mostly a facade that hides the real power structures and didn't make big effect on the important causes of the world. Decades of scandals, coups, and wars orchestrated by USA (what Snowden and Assange revealed is only one episode of long list) didn't stop many (most?) US people from thinking that they're the "good people in the room" despite some mistakes.
- marvin 4y ago
  Well, you've got a view that's in some ways refreshing since it's really far removed from what the mainstream narrative says. But we're either discussing subtly different topics, or I don't agree with your central point. Not entirely sure which. Democracy, freedom of speech, rule of law mostly a facade that hides the real power structures regarding the most important questions of the world? If we decide that "the most important questions of the world" is something other than what the citizens of democracies really care about, then sure, you can run a supertanker through that rhetorical opening. There's plenty of space for dubious foreign policy that supports a small group of people, outside of the space of topics that most people care about. As long as the country in question is so rich that it can afford a powerful military with only a small fraction of its tax revenue. In that case, the foreign policy becomes just a budgetary rounding error that most people don't care about. Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars could arguably fit that definition. But the USA couldn't have afforded those (and maintained enough public support) if it wasn't stupidly rich compared to everyone else. The reason rule of law, democracy and civil liberties won out over totalitarianism after World War two is that those values turn out to produce societies that have more economic power. Not that they're inherently morally superior, although I know what sort of society I'd prefer to live in. I'm ignoring for the moment that the Soviet Union was one of the victors; they wouldn't have been if the USA hadn't been shipping them an incredible amount of home-produced weapons and equipment. It's hard to understate the power of the incentive of retaining most of the value of the valuable thing you created. Regarding Ukraine, if we accept the extreme view that the USA in fact deliberately managed to goad Putin the idiot into making the biggest strategic mistake of the 21st century (invading Ukraine), the mistake is still on Putin. I'll agree it wouldn't have been a nice thing to do, but the moral calculus isn't easy to untangle. Wars are hell, but I have no illusions about what moral transgressions Russia is capable of, and an expanding empire with great power is certainly not a force of great net good in the world. Maybe it could be a net force for good in general, just by default, if the progress of civilization does not stagnate. But it certainly could stagnate and make a net negative. And it's hard to believe it would do a better job than a civilization with great individual freedoms. If the most important questions of the world are greater quality of life for everyone, sustainably, then Western values certainly play a role in achieving that. But the calculus would be a challenge to figure out. The majority of the world's population doesn't live in liberal democracies, after all. Most scientific and engineering achievement has come from liberal democracies, but it's not completely obvious if that's just because what became the liberal democracies had a big head start with industrialization.